The Nonprofit Institutional Dilemma and More on the Future of Infrastructure Organizations

Earlier this week on Twitter, Idealist.org Founder Ami Dar posted this ominous tweet:

My first thought was: oh no, not another one. Not another nonprofit infrastructure group (those that provide capacity building, technical assistance, consulting, workshops, training, conferences, advocacy and research for the nonprofit sector) on the verge of shutting down. Like many of you, I have a personal connection to Idealist.org because I found my very first full-time nonprofit job on their website. My second thought was: the nonprofit sector needs Idealist. We can’t let it go down like this.

I expect Idealist.org to launch a “Save Idealist” fundraising campaign like so many other nonprofits have done in the past year. A local campaign here in DC that recently achieved major success was “Save WEAVE,” a call to the community to keep WEAVE open so they could continue to provide services to domestic violence victims in the city. But while some of the campaigns to save direct-service programs have been successful, Idealist.org will be the first nonprofit infrastructure organization to launch a public fundraising effort of this sort. (That I know of.)  For a non-direct service nonprofit, it’s hard to know what the response will be. As those of us who work in nonprofit associations or capacity building organizations know, it’s much harder to sell a nonprofit that helps other nonprofits than it is to raise money for a nonprofit that helps the poor. Believe me. I did it for over five years. It was tough. The pool of funding sources for non-direct service programs has always been slim, and is only getting slimmer.

Unfortunately, Idealist.org is not the only nonprofit infrastructure organization in financial trouble.

  • Last September, the Chronicle of Philanthropy reported that the Council on Foundations had laid off 16% of its staff amidst decreasing attendance at its meetings.
  • The Nonprofit Times reported in April 2009 that the Association of Fundraising Professionals had plans to lay off 14% of its staff, despite record conference attendance that year.
  • The Council of Nonprofits has also made a round of layoffs, and now seems to have less senior staff than in previous years. Last year, the Council also made the difficult decision to cancel its 2009 Nonprofit Congress.
  • The Alliance for Nonprofit Management began making shifts in their operations in late 2008, with an ongoing series of candid and transparent messages from the Board to their members. Like this one: After difficult and thoughtful deliberation, the Board feels that the most responsible action we can take at this time in order to preserve the mission of the Alliance and insure that members continue to have a voice and place to go for support, is to make major reductions in our budget. These reductions have included restructuring the Alliance with a significant reduction in our staff and engaging a management company (Raffa & Associates) on a pro-bono basis, and one part-time interim program manager to manage the day-to-day functioning of the Alliance.

It makes me wonder, once again, what the future holds for nonprofit infrastructure groups. How are they planning to weather a financial storm that doesn’t seem to be letting up? How will organizations change their revenue models, management structures, and program offerings to be sustainable for the nonprofits they are tasked with helping? I’m thinking particularly of nonprofit associations as they gear up for the 2010 conference season. Are groups still moving forward with the traditional conference program model that costs attendees hundreds of dollars in registration fees and travel? Or are more folks getting hip to the idea of hosting “unconferences” like the amazing one I attended in DC called Social Justice Camp? It was free and it was awesome. And better than many of the nonprofit conferences that I paid big money for.

The ongoing financial and programmatic challenges for nonprofit infrastructure groups is what Clay Shirky meant by the “institutional dilemma.” I’m almost through reading his fantastic book, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. You should read it, too. In the book, Clay talks about how technology has allowed for global collaboration to happen without the assistance of corporations to manage their work. How groups of individuals can effectively organize themselves for social change in lieu of operating under the umbrella of an established organization. To be sure, Clay’s book isn’t an indictment of traditional organizational models. He’s not saying that self-organizing groups of individuals will completely take over the role of “the institution.” But what he does do is point out the precarious nature of institutions:

In a way, every institution lives in a kind of contradiction: it exists to take advantage of group effort, but some of its resources are drained away by directing that effort. Call this the institutional dillemma – because an institution expends resources to manage resources, there is a gap between what those organizations are capable of in theory and in practice, and the larger the institution, the greater those costs.

What this means is that no matter how much we want Idealist.org or Council on Foundations or Council of Nonprofits or Alliance for Nonprofit Management to stick around, there will always be inherent challenges to what they are able to do for the nonprofit sector in the long-term. As Clay points out:

Running an organization is difficult in and of itself, no matter what its goals. Every transaction it undertakes – every contract, every agreement, every meeting – requires it to expend some limited resource: time, attention, or money. Because of these transaction costs, some sources of value are too costly to take advantage of. As a result, no institution can put all its energies into pursuing its mission; it must expend considerable effort on maintaining discipline and structure, just to keep itself viable. Self preservation of the institution becomes job number one, while its stated goal is relegated to number two or lower, no matter what the mission statement says. The problems inherent in managing these transaction costs are one of the basic constraints shaping institutions of all kinds.

The approach that several infrastructure groups have taken so far – layoffs, program cuts, management changes – seem to have had a positive impact to their financial bottom line, but I’m not sure that it translates into success for their respective missions. Do I want Idealist.org to stick around? Yes, of course. But I’m more concerned with preserving their mission versus their organization.

UPDATE: The Council of Nonprofits says it made the decision to cancel the 2009 Nonprofit Congress not because of financial difficulties, but because it didn’t want to burden it’s members with paying travel and attendance costs for the conference in New Orleans. Instead, they held a 2009 Member Meeting and Lobby Day in Washington, DC. They are now officially “moving away from the Nonprofit Congress.”

What do you think? Will new and better models begin to emerge that will be a win-win-win for nonprofit infrastructure organizations, their members and the nonprofit sector overall? Do you know of any that are bubbling up?

More Thoughts on Nonprofit Infrastructure from CompassPoint’s Nelson Layag

Yesterday, several of you dear readers posted some very thoughtful comments on my post, What Does the Future Hold for Nonprofit Infrastructure Organizations? I think we started a rich discussion not just for ourselves, but for our colleagues that are reading as well. Lots of food for thought as we move forward in this new environment. I wanted to highlight one comment in particular by Nelson Layag, who works at CompassPoint, a nonprofit infrastructure organization based in California. Nelson makes some great points about sustainability, quality, and investing in the future. Let’s keep learning from each other!

I want to quickly (okay not so quickly) comment on the idea that charging a fee excludes small nonprofits. I’ve been with CompassPoint for over 15 years and in its total existence of over 30 years (we were formeley the Support Center for Nonprofit Management part of a network of Support Centers), the model has been to charge for services (in general, there are numerous “free” things we do too). What we charge and how we do it is a constant balancing act of what it takes to be a sustainable organization, providing consistent high quality services, and staying on top and contributing to the thought leadership in the sector.

On Sustainability:
As the last poster demonstrated, relying on primarily on private funding (especially if it’s relies just a few) to provide your program services is risky. In my years with CP I’ve witnessed organizations either close their doors or drastically change or reduce what it offers. We haven’t been immune to loss of major funding, but having a diversified revenue structure ensured that we not only maintain our current services, but invest and advance our work in the sector.

On Quality:
Charging a fee keeps us “close to the market” and demands high quality that will keep the market coming back. We have to stay relevant. The market will not tolerate anything less.

On investing in the future and other products: Our revenue model (including foundation, govt, corporate, and consumer fees) is made so we can invest in other areas – for example, the study (Leadership Lost) that was a major contributor to all the dollars we are now and have been seeing invested by funders in nonprofit leadership was done without any outside funding. We are also able to invest in other free products like Board Cafe, etc.

On the definition of “small”: Really it’s not small vs. big. It’s poor vs. rich. We have large nonprofits with large budgets and staff and that basically have little unrestricted money to spend on outside assistance and small staffed nonprofits that seem to have endless cash to spend on consulting and training. Regardless, even organizations in major need – if you offer services that have value and impact to their cause, see the fee a small investment.

On barriers: In order to stay in biz for as long as we have, we are obsessed with what are the barriers for folks to access our services. Fees are definitely in the mix and need to be constantly attended to, but there are so many other factors of which one of the the biggest we see is time (having the time to take a workshop or work with a consultant) and timing. Time seems to be the most preciousn of all commodities in many of our “small” community based organizations. Geography for in-person services is also a major influence.

What Does the Future Hold for Nonprofit Infrastructure Organizations?

If you work at a nonprofit, you really need to read this report by the Nonprofit Quarterly. The Nonprofit Quarterly’s Study on (U.S.) Nonprofit and Philanthropic Infrastructure maps and examines the strengths and weaknesses of the network that supports nonprofits and philanthropy in the U.S. The report is even more relevant now considering how the current recession is affecting nonprofits. In a time when nonprofits most need timely information, advice, training, convenings, and sector advocates, where do they turn?

This research is especially important for you to read and digest if you actually work at a nonprofit infrastructure organization. As a broad definition, nonprofit infrastructure refers to those organizations (that usually have a membership component) who provide capacity building, technical assistance, consulting, workshops, training, conferences, advocacy and research for the nonprofit and philanthropic sector. Most, if not all of them are nonprofit organizations themselves. A few examples: Independent Sector, Council of Nonprofits, Alliance for Nonprofit Management, Nonprofit Technology Network (NTEN), Guidestar, Council on Foundations, Fieldstone Alliance, Association of Fundraising Professionals, Hispanics in Philanthropy…as well as all of the state nonprofit associations like Minnesota Council of Nonprofits. Although the Chronicle of Philanthropy, “the newspaper of the nonprofit world” is not a nonprofit itself, they are yet another source for nonprofit capacity-building as they have recently begun providing webinar trainings for nonprofits.

The Nonprofit Quarterly’s research findings hold many implications for nonprofit infrastructure organizations and the future of nonprofit capacity building. For those of you that don’t have the time to read the entire 72-page study, here is the most important finding of the research that we all need to be thinking about:

The major finding of this study is that the current financing system for nonprofit infrastructure-including foundation funding-favors organizations that support and represent the larger nonprofits of the sector (which make up a small fraction of nonprofits overall) while networks and infrastructure organizations that serve tens of thousands of small to midsize nonprofits have been consistently under-funded.

Which raises the million dollar question: in an economic downturn where we are all struggling, who is supporting the small-midsized nonprofits? Are nonprofit infrastructure organizations really helping those who need it the most?

According to the Nonprofit Quarterly’s recent research, the answer is a resounding NO. Most nonprofit infrastructure organizations are set up (through their financial models) only to help those who can afford their services. Their revenue models determine what kinds of programs they can offer to nonprofits. As the report points out:

For research, policy development, and advocacy programs, foundation support is the most important source of funding; for training, conferences, communications, and member services, earned income is the primary source of financial support.

This means that if a nonprofit membership association or other infrastructure organization receives most of its income from conferences, etc. they must be sure to price the offerings such that they recoup their costs as well as cover overhead. For instance, if you’re the Maine Association of Nonprofits and you receive “more than 80 percent from earned income,” membership dues and conference/event registration fees become pretty important. Same goes for Independent Sector, which receives 70% of its revenue from earned income.

This revenue generation dilemma has always been a thorn in the side of most nonprofit membership organizations, including ones I have worked for or consulted with in the past seven years. If earned income is becoming increasingly more important as foundation grants decrease or dry up, how do organizations keep costs low for conferences and trainings? On the one hand, we need to make money, but on the other hand our mission is to help other nonprofits. In this economic environment, is it possible to do both?

Yesterday on Twitter and Facebook, I started what turned out to be a provocative discussion thread asking what folks thought about the price of the Chronicle of Philanthropy’s new webinars on mergers and fundraising. While the newspaper offers consistently useful, live discussions about nonprofit issues as well as their new podcasts for free, to participate in one of their webinars would set you back $95-$165. Regarding the webinars, web editor Peter Panepento responded with this:

“It’s not for everyone & we recognize that. We also have the weekly live discussions, which are free. We see our webinars as a low-cost alternative to attending a conference or off-site. We pull together some big-name experts who deliver some incredible information. We encourage participants to make these sessions into office-wide events.”

No, in this economy, expensive training is not for everyone. But many nonprofit infrastructure groups are now offering more services for free, as well as discounts or scholarships to their conferences. I’ve often also lamented the high cost of Boardsource tranings, which can cost up to $600, but they are beginning to offer lower-cost options. Same thing with Independent Sector’s annual conference, which is, in my opinion, a valuable experience. However, it could cost up to $1,000 (for non-members) to enjoy that experience, though their new scholarship program for next generation leaders offers some relief. I think that any disapproval of these high training costs are due to the fact that we are assuming those types of trainings are geared toward ALL nonprofits, even the itty bitty ones. We now know that to be an incorrect assumption. According to the Nonprofit Quarterly report:

There has been a relative lack of attention to building an appropriate overall financing system for the infrastructure. A skewed reliance on foundation funding and the lack of capacity (and resources) to pursue more diversified funding streams, including government money and capital funding, has not only led to dwindling resources for infrastructure groups but also, led them to create business models that pull them away from their missions and/or serve only those who “can pay the fee.”

Though the current financial models seem to be “working” for some nonprofit infrastructure organizations, they are certainly not working to address the overall capacity building needs for the majority of the nonprofit sector. To be true to the core mission of capacity building, which is essentially to help nonprofits operate better (including in this new economy), membership organizations, technical assistance groups and others must recommit to examining the way they do business. As the report states:

To respond to this challenging environment in a rapid and well informed way, nonprofits of all sizes and shapes, but especially, the majority which are small or mid-sized, need the connective tissue of infrastructure to, among other things:

  • restructure their practices, services, and organizations to fit a resource-scarce environment;
  • identify and pursue available resources;
  • track important trends in government and communities;
  • identify potentially useful innovations in practice, financing, and organizational structure occurring elsewhere;
  • engage in collective policy development and advocacy.

So what does the future hold for nonprofit capacity building? Will we start catering more to the larger organizations who can pay expensive training fees or will we begin to think creatively about how to meet the need of smaller groups? What do you think nonprofit infrastructure groups should be doing right now?

UPDATE: While the Chronicle of Philanthropy does provide services and resources to nonprofits, they are not a nonprofit organization and would not have been considered part of the group that was examined by the NPQ report. Thanks to Stacy Palmer (Editor of the Chronicle) for the clarification.

Photo credit: shoothead

Power is Not Diamonds

I just found out that my cousin Julie is on Barack Obama’s transition team.  I had just emailed her asking her to donate to one of my favorite nonprofits in honor of my birthday, and she sent me this update about her career. Who knew I had a connection to O Man?  It made me wonder whether all of us in the nonprofit sector might be leaving power on the table by not engaging everyone in our organizations to reach out to their networks for support.

Power is infinite. But in nonprofits, often we only mine power from the top:  from the Executive Director or CEO, from board members, from our funders. We have to remember that there is power within our organizations, too.  Right down to the receptionist. He could have a cousin who knows O Man, too.

Dr. Cathy Royal reminds us that power is not finite. It is not diamonds or tanzanite. We can share it, and we should share it.

And in a challenging economy, this is absolutely the time for nonprofits to share power throughout our organizations.  Involve everyone in the strategic planning process. Engage each staff member in fundraising. You will never know how much power is in your network until you open the door for people to play a part.

Jed Emerson & Ed Skloot: As Obama Settles In, Let’s Get Ready to Innovate as Well as Advocate

The Chronicle of Philanthropy posted this article on Election Day, citing nonprofit and government experts who say nonprofits will find a “sympathetic ear” in the Obama administration. But in the comments, Jed Emerson gives what I think is pretty important advice:

Actually, before we go advocate for non-profits and the things we care about, perhaps those of us who identify as being in the citizen sector should take this moment to pause and re-connect with what it is we are ultimately attempting to do.

Maybe we ourselves should re-define our tools and tactics in this new day and in the midst of a number of profound challenges. The opportunity of Obama’s presidency and his call to rise above partisanship is more than simply a chance to bolster our individual causes and organizations in light of what may be a more receptive administration. We should first stop to reflect upon the array of issues we care about and consider how beyond our own organizational agendas we might better partner with the business community, make use of our own assets most effectively (the 95% foundations invest for financial performance alone, for example) and whether, in fact, we have the courage to rise above the strategies/tactics we have executed during a period of partisanship to create new, yet more powerful approaches to advancing sustained impact and change in our world.

The new administration will inherit budget limits and international demands (among many other things…) that will require we do more than simply speak louder for our issues.

Yes, let’s certainly be engaged and, of course, we should promote the solutions we feel will work best —but lets not assume that in this new opportunity we have already created the best partnerships, ideas and innovations to the problems that have plagued us for years…

Later on, Edward Skloot (formerly Executive Director of the Surdna Foundation) co-signs with this:

Jed’s right, though I’d put it differently. Since the cupboard is bare and our standing as a sector is not (yet) high on the food chain we have to face the likelihood that our budgets are going to suffer, direcly through contributions or indirectly through federal contracts sent down through the states.

This calls for our willingness to be ready to do a quid pro quo, prioritizing what we have to have and what we will do to maintain it. On the foundation side, more mission-based investing, loan guarantees, etc., would improve our lot on the supply side. So would be some greater transparency about how funders are choosing to do their triage.

Without doing our own net-zero calculations and coming up with our own “best” scenario, we’ll see an unstoppable diminishment of funds from all sources.

Loading...
Sign up for blog updates and get a FREE chapter of my book, How to Become a Nonprofit Rockstar!